Action Research for Change and Development

Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000527759
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Higher Education

First Published in 1991, Action Research for Change and Development presents a collection of papers evolved from an international symposium on Action Research in Higher Education, Government and Industry held in Brisbane in 1989. The book is structured in three parts. Part one consists of reflections on the meaning and theoretical foundation of action research. Part two discusses various aspects of action research methodology; and Part three presents case studies of action research. The aim of the book is to bring together international experts in action research in higher education in order to present and discuss a variety of models of action research which have been developed in parallel in many parts of the world. This book will be an essential read for scholars and researchers of education, higher education, business, industry, and community development.

PART I REFLECTIONS ON THE FOUNDATIONS OF ACTION RESEARCH

DOI: 10.4324/9781003248491-1

1 Defining, confining or refining action research?

DOI: 10.4324/9781003248491-2

HERBERT ALTRICHTER, STEPHEN KEMMIS, ROBIN McTAGGART AND ORTRUN ZUBER-SKERRITT

Abstract

This chapter attempts to point to some of the reasons for the difficulty of formulating a valid, generally accepted definition of action research. It states why action research should not be confined; and it suggests that action research must both be clarified for communication and open for development. It stems from afterthoughts and reflections which had been individually written by the authors as responses to some events and issues of the International Symposium in Brisbane in 1989. The chapter cannot claim to put forward a unique and unified solution to the problems it states but rather presents different approaches to dealing with them. Above all, it argues for a sound balance of seriousness and looseness/pragmatism in approaching the question of definition.

The need for definitions

During the Symposium on Action Research in Higher Education, Government and Industry there was obviously some demand for a handy definition of action research. There is not only one; there are many definitions to be found in the literature. For example:

Action Research is a form of collective self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own social or educational practices, as well as their understanding of these practices and the situations in which these practices are carried out. Groups of participants can be teachers, students, principals, parents and other community members, - any group with a shared concern. The approach is only action research when it is collaborative, though it is important to realise that the action research of the group is achieved through the critically examined action of individual group members. (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988, 5)

Participants in the Symposium had varied definitions of their own; they consequently wished to work towards a more open definition - or, rather, towards an approach to defining action research which would attract general consent. This chapter attempts to synthesise some of the major elements in the discussion of the definitional problem of the Symposium.

In traditional philosophy, a 'definition' seeks to capture the essence of an object by relating it to its 'genus proximum' (i.e. the closest superordinate class) and naming its 'differentia specifica' (i.e. specific difference from other species within this class). Philosophical analysis has aimed to establish what an object essentially is by "getting hold of the correct and eternally true account of it" (Barrow & Milburn, 1986, 15). Rather than following this post-Platonian essentialism, one might ask "what is the purpose of a definition?"

Definitions have pragmatic, descriptive and normative functions. They are pragmatic in that they help communication in cases where the participants do not have a shared experienced meaning of an object; they are descriptive in that they record a usual (culturally and historically located) usage of language; and they are normative in that they attempt to include some phenomena into the meaning of a communicated term and exclude other ones. These are preconditions for the communicative function of a definition and useful in providing a basis for the critique and development of a concept.

The encounter of cultures and the adaptation of definitions

During the Symposium McTaggart (see also Chapter 9) shared the story of his collaboration with participants of a different culture: The 'Western action researcher' who in the beginning of the project is obviously more experienced with respect to research strategies and techniques must nevertheless be prepared to 'give away' action research. Since he or she cannot fully understand the host culture (at least in the limited time of usual research) he or she must allow the participants of this culture (who are to become the prime actors in reflecting on and developing the culture) to "reshape", to "remake", to "reconstitute" action research in ways that make sense within the culture while nevertheless attempting to maintain some connection with what people of other cultures mean by the term.

In the face of striking cultural differences, the appropriate attitude towards the meaning of concepts would seem to be incremental rather than normative. On this approach, the emphasis is not on clear-cut definitions by which some research may be labelled as 'non-action research' or as 'limited versions of action research' but rather on offering support for development of the idea and the practice of action research, in ways useful to people within the culture. The approach aims to create space for the evolution of a practice rather than to control practice or to control the naming and framing of practice.

In Holly's personal account of the development of action research over the last two decades (see Chapter 3 and McTaggart, 1989) the notion of 'culture' occupies a prominent position, too: he views action research as an innovation 'offered' to schools. Characteristically, in the process of accepting innovations, teachers and schools also transform them. Like other innovations, action research has been transformed in the process of being adapted to the needs and characteristics of the school setting. Holly conceives the process of innovation as a 'meeting of cultures' (see also Rudduck, 1977). The meaning of his term 'culture' is, however, different from McTaggart's. It does not denote different ethnicities but rather different systems of thought and action developed at relatively unrelated places within one society. The innovation represents a 'culture' which is brought into relationship with the culture of a school (a school system, a classroom) to which it is potentially alien. Arguably, the attitude of someone bringing action research to schools should be similar to that McTaggart advocates for the 'Western action researcher': since neither can be sure to have fully understood the 'host culture' and since both are only 'temporary guests' who do not have to live with the long-term effects of the innovation, their stance should be modest and supportive, 'giving away' action research to be used and transformed by the 'host culture' for its own good rather than watching the process in order to prevent the concept from being 'damaged' or to protect its conceptual purity from 'contamination'.

In discussion, Holly argued that too 'purist a definition (of action research) is disenfranchising': for example, if teachers are starting an action research project it is difficult for them to meet rigorous requirements of 'participation' and 'collaboration', from the very start. Insisting on rigour or dismissing the evolving research project as a 'limited form of action research' could turn newcomers off altogether, instead of giving them time to develop their research, thus sacrificing both the potential of the practice of action research and losing potential practitioners who might otherwise contribute to the development of the approach.

Definitions are rooted in specific (ethnic and social) cultures which give them particular meaning and significance. To be understood by other cultures, it is necessary to do more than produce a literal, verbal translation of the idea into the language and cultural frameworks of the new culture. The idea must be appropriated in an active process of deconstructing old definitions and models and of reconstructing and re-enacting them in relation to the specific settings, circumstances, values and interests of the 'host culture'. Thus, an understanding is gradually developed which can be expressed in definitions and practices indigenous to the specific context. To put the point at its most general: in order to fulfil its 'pragmatic function' the 'normative function' of a definition must not be defended too closely.

The problem of imperialism and the problem of vagueness

On the other hand, not every useful and valuable change process needs to be redescribed in terms of action research, as Kemmis argued during the discussion. It is a particular approach to particular kinds of problems, not some kind of panacea for all problems of social practice. It is simply a matter of intellectual clarity and honesty to develop a fairly clear idea of what one is talking about. This always means that other approaches to improving social practices, social settings and our understanding of social life, although perhaps appealing in other respects, must be excluded from a specific discourse.

Action research aims to develop practical situations and competencies of the participants without substantively prescribing objectives to be achieved. The general aims of action research are frequently expressed in terms of orienting process criteria (e.g. participation, emancipation) rather than in the form of objectives to be achieved, and it seems worthwhile to continue to stress these characteristics to differentiate action research from other approaches to social change. At the same time, it should be acknowledged that we have not yet reached the end of the development of action research. Doing research is researching research (to re-phrase the famous dictum of Stenhouse, 1979) and developing our knowledge about and competency in action research remains necessary; we must avoid behaving as if doing action research were no more than administering a defined strategy. This developmental orientation lies at the very heart of action research and every definition must do justice to this orientation.

The problem with definitions of action research seems to be: how can intellectual clarity (which seems to be necessarily exclusive at a given time) be achieved without doing harm to the overall developmental orientation which action research aims to promote and embodies itself (and which has to be necessarily open to inclusions)? In the following paragraphs two attempts to get the best of both worlds (yes, we know that problems are to be expected with this kind of pursuit) are presented for discussion.

Two sides of a definition

Inspired by Paul Feyerabend's writings, Altrichter (in press) has reconstructed action research for his faculty's practical work as a research program which consists of two distinctive parts: (1) an 'axiomatic part', a definition indicating what is meant by action research; and (2) an 'empirical part', an inventory of 'rules-of-thumb' collecting reflected research experiences of action researchers.

The first part, the definition, is a pragmatic means for communication in the sense that it aims to prevent irrelevant research experiences from being inserted into the inventory of rules. The formulation of the first part is to be as short and clear as possible, using familiar terms. It is finite and relatively static; thus, it should not be so narrow that the need to alter and modify the definition is continually arising. However, the breadth of the definition is eventually a strategic question: the broader the field and the more areas are covered (i.e. the more people are potentially attracted), the more difficult it becomes to concretely argue the strengths of action research and the more competition with other research programs is to be expected.

The second, empirical, part consists of a collection of reflected research experiences. It is as extensive as possible, it is open-ended and dynamic: in doing research, action researchers test the inventory of rules resulting in its modification, augmentation and development.

The 'axiomatic part'

The following description of action research is a concrete example used in the first session of an introductory course into action research.

The 'definition' consists of just three sentences:

What we are talking about:

• - action research is about people reflecting upon and improving their own practice
• - by tightly interlinking their reflection and action
• - and making their experiences public to other people concerned by and interested in the respective practice.

The 'empirical part'

The 'inventory of rules' is potentially infinite and rather extensive in reality. So participants (e.g. at the beginning of the course) can only be provided with a selection. What rules are included in this selection is a pragmatic question of how to enhance learning under specific circumstances rather than a matter of epistemological principle. We consider it most appropriate at the beginning of an action research course to come forward with a mixture of rules which concretise some of the general orientations of action research and of others which give down-to-earth hints for research strategies.

When you are starting your research project the following experiences of other action researchers might give you some orientation. Remember, however, that these experiences have to be tested and developed through your own research:

• - Development in a democratic context is sustainable only if it is participatory.
• - Development in a democratic context is sustainable only if the process emancipates the participants.
• - To avoid frustration and loss of data it is recommended that instruments be tested in a situation similar to the research situation.
• - To ensure collaboration of the participants in the long term it is necessary to acknowledge that...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Contents Page
• Acknowledgements Page
• Foreword Page
• Introduction Page
• PART I REFLECTIONS ON THE FOUNDATIONS OF ACTION RESEARCH
• PART II METHODOLOGY
• PART III CASE STUDIES
• Notes on Contributors
• Appendix One: List of Symposium Participants
• Appendix Two: Symposium Program